EU, Europe, France, Germany, latest

The European War Union

We’re reposting, in full, a June 28, 2016 report on the newly announced plans for the formation of an EU army (with “employable high-readiness forces” and “standing maritime forces”) by the German Foreign Policy, a group that monitors and analyzes foreign policy developments in Germany and the EU.   The report focuses on “A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties,” the joint position paper by Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier and France’s Jean-Marc Ayrault.   The publication of their joint position paper came after previous press reports of plans for the merging of German and Dutch forces, as well as those of the Czech Republic.

Together with his French counterpart, the German foreign minister has announced the EU’s transformation to become a “political union” and its resolute militarization for global military operations.  In a joint position paper, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) and Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS) are calling for the EU’s comprehensive military buildup, based on a division of labor, to enable future global military operations.  Following the Brexit, the EU should, step-by-step, become an “independent” and “global” actor.  All forces must be mobilized and all “of the EU’s political instruments” must be consolidated into an “integrated” EU foreign and military policy.  Steinmeier and Ayrault are therefore pushing for a “European Security Compact,” which calls for maintaining “employable high-readiness forces” and establishing “standing maritime forces.”  The European Council should meet once a year as “European Security Council.”  Before this paper was made public, Germany’s foreign minister and chancellor had made comments also promoting a German global policy and massive rearmament, possibly also with EU-support.

The EU’s Global Mission

In a joint position paper propagated by the German foreign ministry yesterday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) along with his French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS) announced steps toward a political union.  They noted that Britain’s withdrawal from the EU has created “a new situation” with consequences “for the entire EU.”[1]  Berlin and Paris “firmly believe” that the EU provides “a historically unique and indispensable framework” not only for “the pursuit of freedom, prosperity, and security in Europe,” but also “for contributing to peace and stability in the world.”  Therefore, further steps will be made “towards a political union in Europe” and “other European states” are invited “to join us in this endeavor.”  The EU should become “more coherent and more assertive on the world stage.” It is not only an actor “in its direct neighborhood” but also on “a global scale.”  In their paper, Steinmeier and Ayrault wrote, “on a more contested and competitive international scene, France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent [!] and global [!] actor.”

European Security Compact

To implement the EU policies of global power, Steinmeier and his French counterpart drew up elements for a “European Security Compact.” “External crises” have become “more numerous” and have moved geographically “closer to Europe both east and south of its borders.” There is no mention that the EU and its major powers have significantly contributed to the fomenting war and civil war – euphemized by Steinmeier and Ayrault as “crises”: In Ukraine, by seeking, through the Association Agreement, to fully integrate the country into its sphere of hegemony;[2] in Libya, through its aggression, ousting the Gaddafi government;[3] or in Syria, through its political and low-intensity military support of an increasingly jihadist-controlled insurgency.[4] Nevertheless, the German foreign minister and his French counterpart announce that they not only support “the emerging government of national accord in Libya,” but that they are also “convinced that Africa needs a continuous commitment, being a continent of great challenges and opportunities.”

Maximum of Insecurity

According to Steinmeier and Ayrault, the “European Security Compact” will be comprehensive and include “all aspects of security and defense dealt with at the European level.” The foreign ministers write that the EU must “ensure the security of our citizens.” However, the concrete demands indicate that the “European Security Compact” will, of course, not bring greater security, but rather the contrary, a maximum of insecurity – an increase in EU-provoked wars and the inevitable effects, they will have on the centers of European prosperity.[5]

Everything for Policies of Global Power

As a first step, the paper written by France and Germany’s foreign ministers proposes that “a common analysis of our strategic environment” be made. These reviews will be regularly prepared “by an independent situation assessment capability, based on the EU intelligence and situation centre” and submitted and discussed at the “Foreign Affairs Council and at the European Council.” On the basis of this common “understanding,” the EU should “establish agreed strategic priorities for its foreign and security policy.” It is political experience that reaching an “understanding” in the process of foreign and military policy standardization, the standpoint of the strongest member-state – Germany – will be taken particularly into consideration. The results should then be “more effectively” than ever, implemented “as real policy,” according to the paper. The objective is an “integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all [!] EU policy instruments.”

Arms, Arms, Arms

Steinmeier and Ayrault write in detail that to “plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively,” the EU should institute a “permanent civil-military chain of command.” In addition, it must “be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces.” In order to “live up to the growing security challenges,” Europeans need “to step up their defense efforts.” For this, the European member states should “reaffirm and abide by the commitments made collectively on defense budgets and the portion of spending dedicated to the procurement of equipment and to research and technology (R and T).” A few days ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel had already taken the first step in this direction, when she declared that Germany’s defense budget should now begin to converge with that of the United States, in terms of their respective GDP percentages – Germany spends 1.2 percent of its GDP on military, while the US spends 3.4 percent.[6]  Next, Steinmeier and Ayrault explain that a “European semester” should support the coordination of the individual member countries’ future military planning.  “Synergism” is the objective.  Throughout the EU, an arms buildup must be as coordinated and efficient as possible.  The EU should provide common financing for its operations.  “Member states” could establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense “or push ahead to launch operations.”  Particularly important is “establishing standing maritime forces” or acquiring “EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”

More Domestic Repression

The Social Democrat Steinmeier and the Socialist Ayrault write that to ensure “internal security,” the “operational capacity” must be enhanced at the EU level.  This includes making the best use of “retention of flight passenger data (PNR)” – the “data exchange within the EU” must be “improved” – but also “making the best use of Europol and its counterterrorism centre.”  “In the medium term,” there should otherwise be the “creation of a European platform for intelligence cooperation.”  Last weekend, SPD Chair, Sigmar Gabriel and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz (SPD) called for the extension of domestic repression as well as the creation of a “European FBI.”[7]

Seize the Opportunity

Just a few days ago, Foreign Minister Steinmeier declared in the US journal “Foreign Affairs” that Germany has become “a major power” and will “try its best” on the world stage “to hold as much ground as possible.”[8]  With Britain, which had always adamantly opposed an integrated EU military policy, leaving the EU, Berlin sees an opportunity for reviving its efforts at restructuring the EU’s military and mobilizing as many member countries as possible for the EU’s future wars.

[1] This and the following quotes are taken from “A strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties” – Joint contribution by the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
[2] See Expansive Ambitions and Die Verantwortung Berlins.
[3] See Vom Westen befreit (II).
[4] See Forced to Flee (I).
[5] Zu den Rückwirkungen der von europäischen Staaten geführten Kriege s. etwa Der Krieg kehrt heim, Der Krieg kehrt heim (II) and Der Krieg kehrt heim (III).
[6] See Auf Weltmachtniveau.
[7] See Flexible Union with a European FBI.
[8] See Auf Weltmachtniveau.



  1. Seamus Padraig says

    Another possible motive for this new EU Army should be mentioned.

    For years now, Washington had been trying to cajole the other NATO member states into increasing their defense spending to at least 2% of GDP. As NATO then had no real enemy, naturally most Europeans were reluctant to do without butter in order to buy more guns, all for the sake of an antiquated, pointless alliance. Right about then is when the coup in Kiev happened and the new cold war with Russia started. This has solved the enemy problem, but it has also triggered a backlash among some Europeans against NATO. So, in order not to offend their sensibilities too much, Washington’s little sock-puppets inside Europe are disguising the new defense buildup as a plan to ‘make the EU more independent of NATO’, hoping that the more low-information elements of the European left won’t object to the new cold war with Russia so loudly.

    Don’t fall for Merkel and Steinmeier’s little good-cop/bad-cop routine. If Steinmeier and Sigmar Gabriel (SPD chairman) were serious, they would walk out of the coalition government and force new elections to get rid of Merkel. But instead, we get this kabuki theater act.

    These people are devious, and they are serving Washington–not you. You have been warned…

  2. Kathleen Lowrey says

    The only public figure whom I have seen speaking critically about this is Nigel Farage. It’s become a funny old world when the one person with a visible platform at all who seems consistently to speak for a left position is a right-winger.

    • Kathleen Lowrey says

      Canada’s liberal darling, Justin Trudeau, is sending troops to Latvia to “curb Russian aggression”.

  3. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    Shades if Hitler’s Third Reich all over again, this time for global conquest! All with US connivance and Germany’s desire to see the Phoenix rise from the ashes.

      • Richard Le Sarcophage says

        The USA is the Fourth Reich. EU is like Romania during Operation Barbarossa.

  4. rtj1211 says

    As half of Europe is bankrupt, I fall to understand how any but Germany could afford to ‘increase their arms spending as a percentage of GDP’.

    We’ve all seen how the German arms sales to Greece has turned out.

    This is errant nonsense of the worst kind and all about building the 4th Reich.


    Reblogged this on THE DUTCH RESET and commented:

    The US will never let go of their little EU Project. Once a OSS/CIA operation, it still is, European “leaders” are nothing but highly paid employees. The aim of the report is the escape forward. More EU, less nation-state and total dependence on Washington. It is all part of a 100+ year old plan. So politicians, chosen or not cannot be trusted.

    The “founding fathers” of the EU now call for nothing less but a War Coalition under auspicies of NATO/Corporate D.C.

  6. Vaska
    To be fair to Eric, the said article is so vague that one could interpret it in a number of ways. I am woefully ignorant of military matters, but it appears to me that the article is lamenting the departure of UK as a military force together with history of ready engagement in foreign adventures.

    • Secret Agent says

      We have see what these people have done. We know they couch their sinister intentions in vague pleasing PR blurbs. We know they serve their masters in the Empire. We can never give them the benefit of the doubt.

  7. Eric Zuesse says

    I’ve looked at the original document from which that ‘news’ report was drawn, and it seems to me to be aimed at replacing EU dependence on NATO, freeing Europe from the U.S., by increasing military budgets as the U.S. has been urging, but not to do it as part of the NATO Treaty, but instead to do it as an extension of the EU, which isn’t so directly dependent upon the U.S., so that Europe can design its own foreign policies without depending upon Washington’s.

    I consider the summary that was lifted and published here, to be quite deceptive as a representative of the original.

    • Can you cite the portion of the original text on which you base your claim that the proposed measures are to replace Europe’s participation in NATO? If not, your claim here is purely libelous.

      • NATO isn’t even mentioned in the original document. Furthermore Steinmeyer is famous for being an advocate for Russia in Germany. See, e.g.: and and as only three examples. Reading on the lines (as that ‘news’ report you posted did in this matter) isn’t enough; one must also read behind the lines — that is to say: in context, regarding every person’s statement. There isn’t a lot of such reading-behind-the-lines that’s needed in order to understand that Steinmeyer here is seeking a replacement for NATO, a militarily independent Europe. This could pose a threat to the U.S. aristocracy, which, ever since the end of WW II, has controlled Europe.

        • Steinmeier seems to be simply re-stating the conventional EU position. The idea that a globalist-banker-controlled EU could pose some sort of threat to the globalist-banker-controlled US and NATO is maybe a little unrealistic. They’re all simply power blocks to be manipulated as and when required.

          The globalists support a “united” (i.e. centralised and controlled) EU with its own military. Because such a military would potentially be far easier to use for their hegemonic projects without objection and intervention from nation states.

          But at any rate we are talking about interpretations here, and there’s therefore no justification for alleging your view is inevitably correct and others are “deceptive.”

          Let’s try to avoid didactic and divisive statements, no?

          • Seamus Padraig says

            Bingo! Catte, as usual, is wide awake.

            Another point that should be added is that they are probably also interested in militarizing the EU in order to make it even harder for countries to secede from it in the future. This is very likely just another part of their long-term project to transform Europe’s formerly sovereign and independent nations into pathetic little US-style ‘states’.

            • Your detailed statement, places Steinmeyer and Gabriel together merely because they’re leaders in the same Party, the Social Democrats; but, it ignores that they are contending for that Party’s top position and that they disagree strongly about whether to follow the lead of the U.S.: Steinmeyer is strongly against, Gabriel is strongly for.

              I stand by my earlier statement, that “the summary that was lifted and published here” is “quite deceptive as a representative of the original” that’s at:

              • Well, as you can imagine, I always think the best measure of an argument is how stubbornly someone “stands by” it even in the face of reason. It must take considerable chutzpah to decide anyone who dares to disagree with you is being “deceptive.” Do you really believe your opinion to be that incontrovertible? Is a little more humility maybe in order?

                • I said that the author of the article which is posted above was misrepresenting the original, and in important ways, not merely in minor ones.

      • Vaska – I rarely find myself at odds with you but the original piece was written by a man known for his subdued attitude of not painting Russia as the enemy. He may well have been chosen to pen this without really understanding the true intent of the proposers behind it. We are assuming that he – the authour – has a hidden agenda. I think those who have vested interests are unlikely to be forthcoming about their intent, even though too many of us suspect it, I’m not sure the way Steinmeyer has worded the report is intended to be erroneous, just vague enough to fool the casual reader. Eric is right in his appraisal, on the face of it, the report looks reasonable. You and also Catte are both right, because you know the dirty politics behind the scenes. It’s a clever document because of what it does NOT say which is why people who read it can interpret it in different ways. The first time I read the document I thought it rather benign but extremely selective in what was not being stated, the article above puts it in a much more likely perspective, but perspective only?
        This whole project from the EU needs to be watched very carefully and I will be expecting Off Guardian to do exactly that.
        Eric Zeusse is a very competent authour but probably views the Brexit as a stand against the US influence, which was not even a consideration for the Brexiteers. Germany not 12 weeks ago took delivery of another 200 nuclear warheads – to aim at Russia(and no-one in their right mind would believe otherwise) but that wasn’t even an issue for the British and current politics and diplomacy suggests that state heads can’t quite make up their mind about the US threat to escalate a war against Russia. The Brexiteers fall into two camps, those who wanted to stop immigration and those who thought the EU a corrupt money grabbing monster construct. Only an EU member could fully appreciate the subtleties we take for granted because we have been living under the dictatorial yoke of the EU for so long.

        • I do not view Brexit “as a stand against the US influence.” I view Brexit as, instead, being driven by two things: a laudable desire of Brits to live in a democracy no-matter-what; and a condemnable desire to avoid being inundated by immigrants who come from cultures very different from their own. The fact that Brexit would also be “a stand against the US influence” was an insignificant motivation behind Brexit; and, for some other voters, it was an insignificant motivation against Brexit (i.e., among Brits who strongly favor “the special relationship” with the U.S.).

    • Eric, if it wasn’t for the fact that Steinmeyer is known for his retrospective approach to the supposed “Russian Aggression” one might view the original document just as you did. Others, who are familiar with the fingers crossed behind your back(a euphamism for lying through your teeth)rhetoric could well see the original document couched in what is at best “vague” terms to just forgetting to mention the enemy that is Russia. We have all seen German politicians and various other EU representatives talking out of both sides of their mouth. What steinmeyer sees as a genuine proposition is not necessarily what Merkel and Hollande envisage. Both of these heads of state have actively promoted the illegal economic sanctions against Russia and the total disregard for the Paris Treaty with reference to Crimea’s right to self determination. Why should we not voice our own interpretation of the original piece given the knowledge we have of the EU duplicity. The EU is a tangled web of lies and deceits and Steinmayer may be a visionary being used to put a good face on other’s ill intentioned agendas. I am not suggesting you are naive – you are well informed – but not everyone can read the original article and see it as black and white, for many of us it is shades of grey.

      • I am not saying that Steinmeyer isn’t in favor of some bad things such as the EU; I am saying that he’s in favor of releasing the EU from America’s grip (which has been in place since the founding the the EU).

Comments are closed.